Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 27:1 (2022) ► pp.1–30

(The) fact is … /(Die) Tatsache ist … focaliser constructions in English and German are similar but subject to different constraints

ORCID logo | University of Zurich
| University of Zurich

N-is/ist constructions are elements in the left periphery of English/German sentences that have developed pragmatic meaning: they can be used as discourse markers with various functions, depending on the nominal element that is used in the construction. We use evidence from parallel and comparable corpora of English and German to investigate variable article use in these focaliser constructions and model factors that may play a role in article omission/retention (such as modification, choice of head noun, degree of syntactic integration of the focaliser). Our evidence shows that article use largely depends on the lexical head in German but is constrained by different factors in English (notably modification). We interpret our results against the backdrop of construction grammar, arguing that article omission plays a different role in the two languages. From a contrastive point of view, formal syntactic separation in English is easier to achieve than in German and thus facilitates use of English N-is constructions as focalisers.

Keywords: N-is construction, variable article use, contrastive analysis, usage-based probabilistic modelling, construction grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background on German and English focaliser constructions
    • 2.1German ‘projector constructions’
    • 2.2Studies on English
    • 2.3Contrastive analysis
    • 2.4Hypotheses
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Variable article use: An overview
      • 4.1.1Quantitative results
      • 4.1.2Restrictions on article omission?
    • 4.2Statistical modelling
  • 5.Discussion: A construction grammar view of focalisers
  • 6.Outlook
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 January 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17073.hun
References
Aijmer, K.
(2007) The interface between discourse and grammar: The fact is that . In A. Celle & R. Huart (Eds.), Connectives as Discourse Landmarks (pp. 31–46). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., & Günthner, S.
(2003) Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen – ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung? [The emergence of discourse markers in German – a case of grammaticalisation?] In T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, & S. de Groodt (Eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen [Grammaticalisation in German] (pp. 335–362). Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bai, Y.
(2015, July 26–31). Different roads to discourse marker: A corpus-based study of the speaking of X construction [Paper presentation]. 14th IPrA Conference, Antwerp, Belgium.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Pearson.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.
(1987) The remarkable double IS. English Today, 9 1, 39–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brenier, J., & Michaelis, L. A.
(2005) Optimization via syntactic amalgam: Syntax-prosody mismatch and copula doubling. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1 (1), 45–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Callegaro, E., Clematide, S., Hundt, M., & Wick, S.
(2019) Variable article use with acronyms and initialisms – A contrastive analysis of English, German and Italian. Languages in Contrast, 19 (1), 48–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M.
(2006) Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curzan, A.
(2012) Revisiting the reduplicative copula with corpus-based evidence. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English (pp. 211–221). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, M.
(2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Retrieved July 11, 2016, from [URL] [now [URL]].
(2010) The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA). [URL]
(2016–) Corpus of News on the Web (NOW). Retrieved July 11, 2016, from [URL] [now [URL]].
Delahunty, G. P.
(2012) An analysis of The thing is that S sentences. Pragmatics, 21 (1), 41–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiehler, R., Barden, B., Elstermann, M., & Kraft, B.
(2004) Eigenschaften gesprochener Sprache [Characteristics of spoken language]. Narr.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J., & Forest, R.
(2015) Signalling Nouns in English: A Corpus-based Discourse Approach. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S.
(2008) “ die Sache ist…”: eine Projektor-Konstruktion im gesprochenen Deutsch [“die Sache ist…”: A projector construction in spoken German]. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 27 1, 39–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S., & Mutz, K.
(2004) Grammaticalization vs. pragmaticalization? The development of pragmatic markers in German and Italian. In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components (pp. 77–107). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
(2011) Variation, change and constructions in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 22 (1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M.
2022). Constructional change in N-is focaliser constructions. In E. Keizer & L. Sommerer Eds. The English Noun Phrase pp. 206 233 John Benjamins
Hundt, M., & Dellwo, V.
(in preparation) (The) thing is, perception of prosodic punctuation in N-is focalisers is variable. University of Zurich.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O.
(1949–61) A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VII – Syntax. Routledge.Google Scholar
Keizer, E.
(2013) The X is (is) construction. An FDG account. In J. L. Mackenzie & H. Olbertz (Eds.), Casebook in Functional Discourse Grammar (pp. 213–248). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) The (the) fact is (that) construction in English and Dutch. In G. Kaltenböck, E. Keizer, & A. Lohmann (Eds.), Outside the Clause: Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituents (pp. 59–96). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koehn, P.
(1996–2011) Europarl: European Parliament Proceedings Parallel Corpus 1996–2011. Retrieved July 13, 2015, from [URL]
(2005) Europarl: A Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation. MT Summit, 5 1, 79–86.Google Scholar
Krug, M., & Schützler, O.
(2013) Recent change and grammaticalization. In B. Aarts, J. Close, G. Leech, & S. Wallis (Eds.), The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora (pp. 155–186). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kupietz, M.
(2009) Deutsches Referenz Korpus (DeReKo). Retrieved May 5, 2015, from [URL]
Mahlberg, M.
(2005) English General Nouns: A Corpus Theoretical Approach. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massam, D.
(1999)  Thing is constructions: The thing is, is what’s the right analysis? English Language and Linguistics, 3 (2), 335–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, J., & Weinert, R.
(1998) Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Discourse. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mulder, J., Thompson, S. A., & Penry Williams, C.
(2009) Final but in Australian English conversation. In P. Peters, P. Collins, & A. Smith (Eds.), Comparative Studies in Australian and New Zealand English (pp. 337–358). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
(1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J.
(1998) Constant and ephemeral hypostatization: Thing, problem and other “shell nouns”. In B. Caron (Ed.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Linguists (Paris, July 22–25 1997, CD-ROM: Elsevier). [URL]
(2000) English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwentner, S. A., & Traugott, E. C.
(2000) Invoking scalarity: The development of in fact . Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1 (1), 7–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Kneib, T., Augustin, T., & Zeileis, A.
(2008) Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics, 9 (307), 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stvan, L. S.
(2014) Truth is, sentence-initial shell nouns are showing up bare. In L. Veselovská & M. Janebová (Eds.), Complex Visibles Out There. Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistic Colloquium 2014: Language Use and Linguistic Structure (pp. 591–606). Palacký University.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S., & Baayen, H.
(2012) Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change, 24 1, 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tobler, F.
(2014) The Use of Bare Noun Phrase Subjects: A Parallel Corpus-based Study of English and German [Unpublished MA thesis]. University of Zurich.
Traugott, E. C.
(2008) The grammaticalization of NP of NP constructions. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and Language Change (pp. 21–43). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2015) Investigating ‘periphery’ from a functionalist perspective. Linguistics Vanguard, 1 (1), 119–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B.
(2002) Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G.
(2008) A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English. Word Structure, 1 (2), 156–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, D. H.
(1996) The thing is is that people talk that way. The question is is why? In E. H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics (pp. 713–752). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar